Sugar Giants Threaten WHO

[Fencer128]

18 consequetive posts! - is that some sort of new record? I guess we could have discussed one point at a time, and then maybe I'd have devoted some time to it - but not this. I don't have the 3 hours I imagine it would require to go through point by point. Yes, it's all about rice but boy does it go on

To sum up my main counter arguements to your points in no more than one post (I'm giving up on this topic after this post):

1.

According to the FAO, overall malnourishment has increased since the start of trade liberalisation, affecting 48% in 1979-1981 and 62%in 1996-1998.

If they were starving before and now they have access to all the cheap imported rice to sustain them, why are more people malnourished now than before trade liberalisation? My guess is that whatever the benefit the influx of cheap food has had on the people is outweighed by the poverty being forced on the the rice farmers of Haiti. I believe the US already gives rice in the way of "food aid" and finance ($20 million?) to Haiti. Why not use the international aid to fund farmer reforms (education, upgrade of equipment etc) + food aid instead of eroding their domestic industry so that they may have no choice but to buy import rice for a very long time?

In the near future, Haiti could fall into a vicious circle of macroeconomic imbalance, food and aid dependency.

With the depreciation of the gourde, Haiti needs to earn more foreign exchange in order to finance its growing food import bill.
80% of Haiti exports are light manufacturing to the US. Given the recession in the US, Haiti could have difficulties to finance its food imports, especially if remittances from the US decline together with the on-going world economic recession.

2. In case you didn't catch this bit

"...the EU too has issues with fair trade. I could also point to the tomato growers of Ghana in that respect (but Haiti was what was bought up originally)."

I already know that the EU has as much to do with unfair trade as anyone else. If you look at the BBC page I linked you will find a couple of articles linked off of it to EU issues (under "The Ingredients"). Doesn't sound too biased to me.

3. I don't see the logic in blaming the lobbied IMF for opening up trade in Haiti when it is countries and companies that are exploiting that.

I'm not trying to offend, this is just how I see it...

I still see "fast buck" written over this despite the philanthropic dressing that you're trying to put on it. When that doesn't convince you have a "but look what everyone else is doing" arguement that doesn't cut it with me either. What I do see is that because the BBC bought this up and because it mentions the US, then you've got a chip on your shoulder over it. I don't think we'll see eye to eye over this issue.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Of course I do, that article barely covered anything of the forces at work in Haiti, it merely dumped the balme on the US, that wasn't about "free trade", half the article is about the suffering of the people of Haiti, all because of unfair US trade practices which is stated as fact in one line, and repeated by you here.

The EU is currently damaging multiple third world nations with their "favourable and preferential" trade practices, none of which was mentioned. Quite frankly, the EU makes the US look like a saint when it comes to trade. Why can the EU maintain a 35% import levy on imported milled rice to protect their owmn doemstic markets but Haiti was not allowed to keep their own, which was also set at 35%? Why does the EU skirt the laws to buy US rice at low prices (thanks to the tax money uncle same gives to US farmers so that our rice can be sold that cheaply), then mill it and re-sell it at a premium to third world countries that can barely afford to buy enough food?

The $$$ and training you mentioned was given, in the 1980's, did you just count the posts or did you actually bother to read them? That money came from America too, the international community did not help there either.

Why are people starving where the UN is present?

of course we will not see eye to eye on this, you solely blame the US for the problems of Haiti, ignoring all the evidence which suggests otherwise and proves the level of help we have given them exceeds the rest of the world combined. Long live the BBC, that bastion of integrity.....

 

[Fencer128]

I wasn't going to post again on this issue - but given that you've made out my arguement was what it was not, and that the rest of the world have some impact on this particular issue, I've reposted. This really will be my last (don't suppose you'll be upset over that )

Of course I do, that article barely covered anything of the forces at work in Haiti, it merely dumped the balme on the US, that wasn't about "free trade", half the article is about the suffering of the people of Haiti, all because of unfair US trade practices which is stated as fact in one line, and repeated by you here.

The article was about free trade and the consequences that it has for the people of Haiti. What it definitely did not say, as you imply, is that the US trade with Haiti is responsible for all of Haiti's problems.

The EU is currently damaging multiple third world nations with their "favourable and preferential" trade practices, none of which was mentioned. Quite frankly, the EU makes the US look like a saint when it comes to trade. Why can the EU maintain a 35% import levy on imported milled rice to protect their owmn doemstic markets but Haiti was not allowed to keep their own, which was also set at 35%? Why does the EU skirt the laws to buy US rice at low prices (thanks to the tax money uncle same gives to US farmers so that our rice can be sold that cheaply), then mill it and re-sell it at a premium to third world countries that can barely afford to buy enough food?

How many times do I need to say that the EU is not blame free when it comes to trade? Did you notice the links on the BBC page, that I pointed out, that highlighted problems with EU trade practives just as they did with the US and Haiti? The EU has nothing to do with this particular arguement.

The $$$ and training you mentioned was given, in the 1980's, did you just count the posts or did you actually bother to read them? That money came from America too, the international community did not help there either.

I read all of your posts but not all of the sources, far too much information and most not relevant to the point in question (affect of US rice trade on Haitian rice growers/economy). I'd be happy for you to quote me the relevant details concerning the aid though.

Why are people starving where the UN is present?

Good point. Not to do with the topic though. This has nothing to do with the UN.

of course we will not see eye to eye on this, you solely blame the US for the problems of Haiti, ignoring all the evidence which suggests otherwise and proves the level of help we have given them exceeds the rest of the world combined. Long live the BBC, that bastion of integrity.....

So not what I've been saying. What you've been posting, but not what I've been saying. As for the BBC, well if they're biased because they dealed with EU unfair trade in the same programme (see links) then I guess you're right.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

You brought US trade policy into question here, we have yet to see how it is unfair, especially compared to the dubious dealings of the EU.

You presented that article as proof of US trade policy affecting other countires welfare and economic situation. I presented far more evidence of actual practices by the EU that do exactly that in many more countries. We still have yet to see what it is about US tarde policy that does the same thing to Haiti.

Our subsidies only pay American farmers the difference of what it costs to make a profit once they lower their selling price to compete on the open world market price, our rice is actually priced a little bit higher, but is also the higest quality. What is your point?

Is Haiti forced into buying only US rice? How do american subsidies hurt haitian's?


There is ample time to read through those, I did. Spend less time browsing through only
one source and you might get a clearer picture. Especially if you know your source has been accused of showing bias in the area you are reading about, it never hurts to look outside that one tainted window.

 

[Alistar7]

What would happen if the US stopped subsidizing rice?

Their market price would put them beyond Haiti's reach, so they would buy the next best quality they could at the best price, it would just be EU unfairly subsidized rice, and they would be gettinfg raped for it on top off everything, unless the EU extend "favourable and preferential" trade status as they did for some, but considering the shape those countries are in because of that in some part I wouldn't go that route.

I think it is very relevant to note the lack of progress the UN has had there, as well as the Congo and Kosovo.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
You brought US trade policy into question here, we have yet to see how it is unfair, especially compared to the dubious dealings of the EU.

The EU is guilty of unfair trade too - as I have already explained (again and again) - and comparing the two does not lessen the guilt.

You presented that article as proof of US trade policy affecting other countires welfare and economic situation. I presented far more evidence of actual practices by the EU that do exactly that in many more countries. We still have yet to see what it is about US tarde policy that does the same thing to Haiti.

I presented the article as my reasoning as to how the US's rice trade with Haiti was affecting the Haitian economy and was unfair. I mentioned no other countries. Again, the EU has no bearing in this debate other than to say that they employ unfair trade practices too. This is no surprise as I have already pointed it out and the BBC article links to unfair EU trade stories.

Our subsidies only pay American farmers the difference of what it costs to make a profit once they lower their selling price to compete on the open world market price, our rice is actually priced a little bit higher, but is also the higest quality. What is your point?

I do not know about world rice trade, but in reference to Haitian rice. The subsidies allow the US rice to make Haitian rice completely uncompetitive and so are weaning the country to be more and more dependant on imported rice. If this continues one can envisage a situation where in the event of a price rise or lack of imported rice the country will have no alternative but to pay more in order to feed itself. In the shorter term numerous small farmers are going out of the mediocre business they have and into poverty because their crop is being subsidised out of competition. This is my point. I'm sure there are plenty of rice buyers out there who can afford to pay US prices, or competitors who can afford to adapt. Haiti cannot.

Is Haiti forced into buying only US rice? How do american subsidies hurt Haitian's?

As above. Their economy is being slowly tied to the US economy. If the US are forced to put up rice prices then the Haitians will suffer tremendously. If things stay as they are then the domestic industry may die out substantially.

There is ample time to read through those, I did. Spend less time browsing through only
one source and you might get a clearer picture. Especially if you know your source has been accused of showing bias in the area you are reading about, it never hurts to look outside that one tainted window.

If you mean the BBC as my one source then you are mistaken. I also referenced this article. Quite a nice article with a lot of numbers. Of all the posts you referenced, only one maybe two actually addressed the impact of US rice on Haiti. The rest were mainly concerned with the EU/IMF articles that show unfair trade practices. Noble but not relevant to whether the US trade of rice in Haiti is "unfair" trade.

What would happen if the US stopped subsidizing rice?

If subsidies were stopped altogether then IMHO the rice companies would pull out and the population would starve as their domestic supply of rice would not be enough to supply them.

but if subsidies allowed the US companies to compete with equal prices to the domestic market then both the domestic and import markets would grow, albeit with the import market at a lower rate than if the rice was subsidised below what the domestic farmers could match.

Their market price would put them beyond Haiti's reach, so they would buy the next best quality they could at the best price, it would just be EU unfairly subsidized rice, and they would be gettinfg raped for it on top off everything, unless the EU extend "favourable and preferential" trade status as they did for some, but considering the shape those countries are in because of that in some part I wouldn't go that route.

Or you could just unneccesarily drag the EU into this once again.

I think it is very relevant to note the lack of progress the UN has had there, as well as the Congo and Kosovo.

And the UN.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Or you could ignore the fact the Un is there and they are still starving, or ignore the lack of prgoressthe UN has made in other areas they are "handling", seems a more common thread than American trade practices.

"I do not know about world rice trade, but in reference to Haitian rice. The subsidies allow the US rice to make Haitian rice completely uncompetitive and so are weaning the country to be more and more dependant on imported rice."

Why are they buying US rice then? Why don't they buy the stuff thatis out there that is cheaper? Why don't they invest in new equipment and modernize their domestic industry/ Why is the UN not helping them do this right now?

Nobody makes them buy our rice, and our subsidies have no effect on haiti's economy, it is their decision as consumers that is the only factor here.

You want to understand how a US subsidy would hurt haiti? The US govt. subsidizing rice so we could sell it below market value, and undermine their customer base. Too bad they can't even grow enough rice for themselves, and nobody would buy it anyway due to quality alone, their own people won't even buy it anymore.

The US has no choice in the decison Haiti makes everyday, who should we buy the rice we need from? Yet we are blamed because they choose our product over their own.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Or you could ignore the fact the Un is there and they are still starving, or ignore the lack of prgoressthe UN has made in other areas they are "handling", seems a more common thread than American trade practices.

Are we talking about the same thing here? All my posts have been about the effect US rice trade has in Haiti. Nothing to do with the UN. Did I somehow mention the UN somewhere - because despite the fact that in nearly every post I have pointed out that the UN/EU is a seperate issue you continually mix it in here. What's the problem?

"I do not know about world rice trade, but in reference to Haitian rice. The subsidies allow the US rice to make Haitian rice completely uncompetitive and so are weaning the country to be more and more dependant on imported rice."

Why are they buying US rice then? Why don't they buy the stuff thatis out there that is cheaper? Why don't they invest in new equipment and modernize their domestic industry/ Why is the UN not helping them do this right now?

There is no rice cheaper than the US rice. If there was no doubt the US rice subsidy would increase to the level where it is still the cheapest. That is the point. They are a poor country, they don't have much spare cash to invest. Yes, the UN should be helping them out but it is a seperate issue to how the US conducts its trade at the moment and in these circumstances.

Nobody makes them buy our rice, and our subsidies have no effect on haiti's economy, it is their decision as consumers that is the only factor here.

Yes, they buy the cheapest rice, and in doing so put themselves in jepordy of becoming relient on foriegn imports and having to pay whatever seller demands. Also, there is a personal problem of rice growers going out of business and into further poverty. If the government subsidised microsoft such that Xbox's sold for $1 then sony would go out of business because everyone would want a cheap Xbox. Is that fair? Add to that the fact that were not talking about luxury goods and that what goes out of business is a country's capacity to feed itself and you have a very grim situation.

Why not just subsidise to the same level as Haitian rice? That way both parties are sure to make some profit and rice farmers will have the opportunity to build rather than face continual decline?

You want to understand how a US subsidy would hurt haiti? The US govt. subsidizing rice so we could sell it below market value, and undermine their customer base. Too bad they can't even grow enough rice for themselves, and nobody would buy it anyway due to quality alone, their own people won't even buy it anymore.

Not sure I understand your comment in bold. They will never be able to grow enough rice for themselves if this continues. Their rice industry is going down the tubes. US rice is the best quality in the world but that hardly makes Haitian rice inedible! Their people won't buy it because US rice is cheaper (as I've explained the merits thereof above).

The US has no choice in the decison Haiti makes everyday, who should we buy the rice we need from? Yet we are blamed because they choose our product over their own.

If you've read what preceeded then I've no need to explain my view on the last comment.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

No the people starving under the watch of the UN has nothing to do with US trade policy or rice subsidies.

You are wrong though, our rice is not the cheapest, it is actually slightly higher than the international market price, this is made very clear in many of the articles I linked.

The US did not create the situation in Haiti, their own govt. has, the same people that buy our rice everyday. The effect would be the same if they bought EU rice. I am curious as to how the EU is able to mantain a 35% import tax on milled rice, all done to protect their domestic markets, while Haiti was forced by the IMF to stop doing the same exact thing.

All the US has done is provide a superior quality product at a fairly equal cost compared to the world market price. The world market price, which the US does not set, we go off other countries prices since ours are subsidized, is the cause of their economic woe. Everyone sells their rice cheaper than they can produce it domestically, because they have better technology and equipment. If the US farmers recieved no subsidies, their price would be higher than the market average, out of the reach of Haiti, and would drive the price up worldwide on rice, causing them even more hardship in the short term.

What is your solution, ending US rice subsidies is not the answer.

 

[Alistar7]

Maybe have the UN, since they seem to enjoy spending so much time there, rebuild their agricultural infrastructure, introduce new strains and equipment to increase quality and yield while reducing cost and restore their domestic rice industry. I find it hard to believe the people of Haiti would not support their own country at hte marketplace if the cost was similar. They have that choice now, but the price of domestic rice is prohibitive, as it will be as long as the international price is so low. Once again the US does not set the market price, we only meet it, that is hardly unfair as many of the "favourable and preferential" exemptions the EU routinely makes. Their direct and intentional actions have had a far worse effect on other countries.

In the meantime though, the US will keep spending US taxpayer dollars to keep our rice as cheap as everyone else's so you can afford to eat the best rice everyday Haiti.

 

[Alistar7]

Ok just got the cable I needed to hook my Live MP3+ 5.1 card to my new Klipsch DD-5.1 Decoder, time to install this baby and fire up the pro-media 5.1's and see if there is a $180 difference.....

 

[Alistar7]

fencer, don't eat any rice or Dominican sugar while I am gone, and just to warn you, we need to discuss the current potatoe situation in argentina when I get back....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
fencer, don't eat any rice or Dominican sugar while I am gone, and just to warn you, we need to discuss the current potatoe situation in argentina when I get back....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Ok just got the cable I needed to hook my Live MP3+ 5.1 card to my new Klipsch DD-5.1 Decoder, time to install this baby and fire up the pro-media 5.1's and see if there is a $180 difference.....

If your neighbours can't hear it - it's not working right!

Andy

BTW: If I don't stop posting/replying and you do the same - given our stances this will go on forever and a day. I could post a reply to what you last said, but then I know you would come back again. So I propose we give up and do something productive with our lives instead. i.e. anything else (possibly even posting in another thread).

What do you say?

 

[sandorski]

I've never had my nails pulled out with a pair of pliers, but I imagine it to be more pleasurable than reading this thread.

Instead of turning this into a badest UN>EU>Hans Blix>RoW>US thread, how about discussing the crappiness that the 3rd World is being forced to endure due to International organizations mandated policies and the policies of First World Nations(in this case Agricultural subsidies)? Like I and Fencer said, the EU and the US *are* hurting 3rd World nations.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I've never had my nails pulled out with a pair of pliers, but I imagine it to be more pleasurable than reading this thread.

Instead of turning this into a badest UN>EU>Hans Blix>RoW>US thread, how about discussing the crappiness that the 3rd World is being forced to endure due to International organizations mandated policies and the policies of First World Nations(in this case Agricultural subsidies)? Like I and Fencer said, the EU and the US *are* hurting 3rd World nations.

You're right about that! If you want to discuss EU/UN/US issues then I think you'll have to narrow it down - even just a bit - otherwise there's just too much to cover in one thread. Any suggestions? Prime examples?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I've never had my nails pulled out with a pair of pliers, but I imagine it to be more pleasurable than reading this thread.

Instead of turning this into a badest UN>EU>Hans Blix>RoW>US thread, how about discussing the crappiness that the 3rd World is being forced to endure due to International organizations mandated policies and the policies of First World Nations(in this case Agricultural subsidies)? Like I and Fencer said, the EU and the US *are* hurting 3rd World nations.

I agree the IMF has along damaged 3rd world countries along with the dubious trade practices of the EU, which are being changed after crticism appraently, however I still do not see how the US subsidizing their rice hurts Haiti.

If our rice was way cheaper than the world market price because of our subsidies, then we would be at fault, but we don't set that price, and we are actually a little higher than the average. They willingly spend that fraction more for the quality.

 

[Fencer128]

Here is everything you ever wanted to know about the rice trade. Forget what you think of the weblink, because the document is not theirs (all will become clear when you read it - it is very involved). Page 19/20 section 2.1 is of particular concern to our little debate. I would copy and paste, but it is a pdf and I can't seem to do that. If you manage to read it all you'll see that it deals with EU unfair trade policies as much as US ones.

Let me know your thoughts,

Andy

EDIT: Section 4.2.2 (page 48) is also very pertinent.

 

[Alistar7]

I think that if the US grew no rice Haiti would have been buying it from somewhere else. US rice is not the reason for their problems.

Is the UN going to at least try to revitalize and update their domestic rice production? That makes the most sense.

no offense Andy, I have gotten as deep into international rice trading practices as I would prefer at the moment, quite frankly, I think I may know more than is ever going to be needed again unless I become a rice broker......

 

[Alistar7]

So how about that sugar?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
So how about that sugar?

I see rice when I sleep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I haven't heard anything further on the sugar issue. I guess both parties still hold the same views of each other. Have you seen any stories?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

isnt the WHO like the IMF, should we even listen to what they suggest?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
isnt the WHO like the IMF, should we even listen to what they suggest?

Well I don't see what the WHO has to gain out of this by suggesting that the recommended sugar intake levels should be adjusted down. You could cynically argue that the IMF people receieve some sort of back handers from their lobbyists for proposing changes (such as trade openings) that could potentially damage markets. I can't see how such a thing could happen in this situation. Who's benefitting - only public health information as far as I can tell? (That would make a good WHO investigative article wouldn't it? - "WHO's benefitting?")

There's been a lot of research over the last few decades that raises questions concerning levels of sugar consumption, in particular with relation to type 2 diabetes. I find it extremely hard to believe that 25% sugar in your diet isn't going to have a negative effect on you. In all honesty I thought that 10% was too high a figure too. Let people eat as much as they like - but lets not pretend that these refined carbohydrates are good for you in anything but the most moderate quantities.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[sandorski]

It seems quite clear that the policies of both the EU and the US is damaging to 3rd World economies. The reason that Agricultural Subsidies is damaging is because the EU/US(other countries have subsidies as well, but the EU and US are the biggest subsidizers) produce their Agricultural Product below cost. Even if Haiti or other countries modernize their production, they have little chance of competing without their own subsidies/trade protections, 2 things the IMF insists they not do.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems quite clear that the policies of both the EU and the US is damaging to 3rd World economies. The reason that Agricultural Subsidies is damaging is because the EU/US(other countries have subsidies as well, but the EU and US are the biggest subsidizers) produce their Agricultural Product below cost. Even if Haiti or other countries modernize their production, they have little chance of competing without their own subsidies/trade protections, 2 things the IMF insists they not do.

Not that I endorse getting into the "rice" arguement, but the last link I put up gives some insight into US/EU trade practices. You might want to check it out - just do me a favour and keep it general, we've all had enough of rice around here

Cheers,

Andy